Am 31.03.2011 04:09, schrieb waldo kitty: > On 3/30/2011 08:18, Zaher Dirkey wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl> >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >> > > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that. >> > >> > Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you >> mean like >> > the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static >> linking >> > exception". You are still required to donate all modifications >> to the >> > LGPL code though, just like the vanilla LGPL license. >> >> My bad, you are entirely right. The exception absloves you from >> the clause >> that forces dynlinking, not the OSS bits. I don't know what I was >> thinking. >> >> >> I always feel not free with all this free licenses. > > my thoughts, too... for many years ;)
IMO but IANAL, the free is meant to keep the liberty of the sources but it's not about that a user is free to do with the sources what he wants. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus